Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?

quote:

---

The OP is trying to look at the probablity that Mary would have actually gone to Bethlehem as the story claims.

​

I think we can, even 2,000 years later, discern whether account is probable and not just possible.

---

The problem with this approach is that it is extremely improbably for almost any historical event to have occurred exactly as it did. And probabilities are difficult to assign and somewhat misleading for historical events--the events either happened or they didn't.What is the probability that a Mars-sized body would strike the early earth, throw off a large amount of earth material which would be captured by earth's gravity and condense to form our moon? This is extremely improbable, but it is apparently what happened.Or what is the probability that you would wake up exactly when you did this morning, follow exactly the schedule that you did, with the exact conversations and events that occurred? It is extremely small, nearly zero. But it happened nonetheless.We must be careful when discussing probabilities of past events. Low probability does not mean that the event didn't happen.

quote:

---

a. Mary being "heavy with child" would have most certainly meant losing her child on such a massive journey. Even if she had rode, the rough roads, and constant jarring would have caused hemorrhaging within her Uterus, as a result of the child being constantly rubbed against it's walls. Also, the child would be enduring traumatic injury with each violent jar.

---

Where do you get "heavy" with child? Lk 2:5 only says that she was pregnant. Couldn't she have been only 3-4 months pregnant, in which case the journey would not be nearly so dangerous as you describe?

quote:

---

No. There were three censuses during the reign of Caesar Augustus 28 BC, 8 BC, and 14 AD. Quirinius did not take up Governorship until 6-7AD.
This would obviously mean that the first Roman census to occur with Quirinius as Governor of Syria would have been 14AD. This is at least 8 years too late for the supposed birth of Jesus.

---

Yes, the census at Jesus' birth poses a problem which has no simple solution. The grammar of Luke 2:2 is investigated in The Problem of Luke 2:2, which concludes:

quote:

---

The next big problem with the entire story of Luke is that Galilee was not part of the Kingdom of Judah, but was being ruled by Antipas. It was not subject to taxes at the time. Judah was, because it's ruler was just replaced, and put under direct roman control.

---

No, this division of the kingdom occurred only after the death of Herod the Great (Herod I). Jesus was born while Herod I was king of Galilee as well as Judah.

I wrote:

quote:

---

Are you serious? Surely this is a joke?

quote:

---

Luke 2:
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

---

---

Perhaps you don't realize that the Gospel of Luke was written in Koine Greek, not in King James English? The King James translation of this verse is somewhat misleading. The original Greek simply uses the adjective "pregnant" (egkuos). Nearly all modern translations convey the same sense as the Greek:

quote:

---

Did you not think to perhaps read the story before commenting?

---

Did you not think to perhaps check the original or some modern translations before commenting?

quote:

---

So you know when Jesus was born?

---

Almost certainly between 2 BC and 7 BC. Many make a strong case for about 4 BC, which is perhaps the most likely date.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Or perhaps he calls it the first registration because the 6 AD census was the first tax census held by the Romans. The facts are:

​

We have no record of any earlier tax census of Judaea. (Or even a good reason for one to be held)

---

Are you claiming that Judea was not taxed by Rome before 6 AD? (If it were taxed earlier, there must have been an earlier tax census.)There is evidence of "a combined census and oath of allegiance to Augustus in 3-2 B.C., perhaps related to the bestowal of the title 'pater patriae' (father of thy country) by the senate on Feb. 5, 2 B.C." This was apparently mentioned by Caesar Augustus and by Josephus, and the fifth-century historian Orosius seems to link this to the birth of Christ: (Quotes taken from section 2.3 in Yet Another Eclipse for Herod)

quote:

---

We have no record of Qurinius holding any power in Judaea prior to 6 AD

---

But remember the old adage, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

quote:

---

We DO have information that Quirinius was responsible for the 6 AD census.

​

On this basis the idea that Luke meant the 6 AD census is clearly the best explanation.

---

Not so fast. You're making an argument mostly from lack of corroborating evidence for the biblical account, not from any evidence that the biblical account is wrong.

quote:

---

He does mention the revolt though. He specifically mentions it with regard to 'the first registration' (Acts 5:37)

​

So Luke knew of the revolt but did not write it in his gospel. The only reason he would do this is because the registration he wrote about in the Gospel, was a different registration to the one that resulted in a jewish revolt.

---

A minor clarification:
The registration described in Acts 5:37 is not described by Luke as "the first," while the one in Luke 2:1 is described this way. This is suggestive (but not proof) that they are speaking of two different events.A leading archaeologist who was a world expert on Asia Minor and on Luke's writings said this: Ramsay pointed out that the evidence for the 6 AD census rests on a single inscription from Venice. This had been lost for some time after its discovery, leading skeptics to doubt both this census and the existence of Quirinius.

quote:

---

If Ramsay said that then he had no idea what he was talking about. The 6 AD census is recorded in Josephus.

---

Perhaps Ramsay was referring only to firsthand evidence when he called evidence for the 6 AD census "purely accidental?" Josephus' information would have been secondhand at best, since he was born after the census.At any rate, if anyone is guilty of minimizing Josephus' testimony, it is the biblical critics more than Ramsay. As Ramsay wrote in a footnote on p. 386 regarding the "purely accidental" evidence for the 6 AD census: Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Luke refers to a census of Judaea held under Quirinius. We have a census of Judaea held in 6AD under Quirinius. Why should we assume that Luke meant some earlier census ?

---

Do we have extra-biblical records of more than one census under Quirinius? Luke pointedly refers to the "first" census under Quirinius, implying that Quirinius held at least one later census. Why do you assume that the 6 AD census was the first one under Quirinius, and not the second or a later one?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do we have extra-biblical records of more than one census under Quirinius?

---

No. We don't have any independent records of ANY Roman census of Judaea prior to 6 AD, or any record of Quirinius holding the governorship of Syria (or any other position that Luke might have meant) prior to 6 AD.

---

That's not what I asked. To be more specific, do we have any extrabiblical records of another census under Quirinius AFTER the 6 AD census? If so, your case would have more weight.